Your say
Environment - Not "climate change" Emissions not making rivers run dry Stewart Franks \| September 12, 2008 Article from: The Australian IS the ongoing drought in the Murray-Darling Basin affected by climate change? The simple answer is that there is no evidence that CO2 has had any significant role. Like it or not, that is the science. In fact, the drought was caused by an entirely natural phenomenon: the 2002 El Nino event. This led to particularly low rainfalls across eastern Australia. The subsequent years were either neutral or weak El Nino conditions. Significantly, neutral conditions are not sufficient to break a drought. In 2006, we had a return to El Nino conditions which further exacerbated the drought. What we didn't have was a strong La Nina. Last year finally brought a La Nina event but it was relatively weak. It produced a number of major storm events in coastal areas and some useful rainfall in the Murray-Darling basin and elsewhere. Approximately half of NSW drought-declared areas were lifted out of drought (albeit into "marginal" status) and Sydney's water supply doubled in the space of a few months. This was the first rain-bearing La Nina since 1999 but proved insufficient to break the drought. In short, the drought was initiated by El Nino, protracted by further El Nino events and perhaps more importantly, the absence of substantial La Nina events. Despite the known causes of the drought, many have claimed that CO2 emissions are to blame. There have been arguments put forward to justify this claim, all eagerly adopted by various groups, but none of which have serious merit. A key claim is that the multiple occurrence of El Nino is a sign of climate change. This is speculative at best. Recent analysis showed the nine-year absence of La Nina was not unusual. In fact long-term records demonstrate alternating periods of 20-40 years where El Nino is dominant, followed by similarly extended periods where La Nina dominates. Ominously, the data demonstrates that it is possible to go 14-15 years without any La Nina events. The consequent drought would be devastating but entirely natural. The observation that El Nino and La Nina events cluster on 20-40 year, multi-decadal timescales is an important one. It demonstrates that Australia should always expect major changes in climate as a function of natural variability. When viewed in this light, the drought is most likely a recurring feature of the Australian climate. A more recent claim is that higher temperatures are leading to increased evaporation of moisture. The weather bureau acknowledges that rainfall from September 2001 until now has not been the lowest recorded, however much has been made of the fact that consequent inflows have been the lowest. It has been claimed increased evaporation, driven by climate change, can make up this discrepancy. Indeed, Wendy Craik, the chief executive of the Murray Darling Basin Commission has stated that temperatures were warmer, leading to more evaporation and drier catchments. This is disturbing to hear from the head of the MDBC, as it is completely at odds with the known physics of evaporation. While it sounds intuitively correct, it is wrong. When soil contains high moisture content, much of the sun's energy is used in evaporation. Consequently, there is limited heating of the surface. When soil moisture content is low (as occurs during drought) nearly all of that energy is converted into heating the surface, and air temperatures rise significantly. Consequently, higher temperatures are due to the lack of evaporation, not a cause of significantly higher evaporation. Cloud cover also provides a major control on air temperatures. El Nino delivers less rainfall but also less cloud cover. This has a major impact on the amount of the sun's energy reaching land; far greater than the trivial increase in radiant energy caused by increased CO2. Again, in the absence of soil moisture, air temperatures increase. These are known and accepted processes of environmental physics and are not contentious. They are ignored because they detract from the simple message that we should sign up to the concept of "dangerous climate change" and an emissions trading scheme. After all, who would pay for carbon emissions if they were not proven to be detrimental? Who would provide extra funds for climate change science if it wasn't a proven significant factor compared to natural climatic variability? None of the above is to say that CO2 is not having some effect; the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen and this is largely attributable to anthropogenic emissions. CO2 is a radiatively-active gas and leads to a minor increase in downward radiation. However, there is no evidence that this is in any way significant, especially when compared to the naturally varying processes that dominate rainfall variability and evaporation. We do know why inflows are so low and why various ecosystems of the Murray-Darling are in crisis: the system is over-allocated and has experienced a growth in groundwater extraction and in the number of farm dams preventing rainfall from becoming run-off. This is due to a failure of planning, management and leadership from the relevant authorities. Under these conditions, when a prolonged drought strikes, the system collapses. This is a man-made problem but not one that is attributable to CO2. pt1
Islam - Clerics condone.... Quote: and meetings with and questions to the Victorian Board of Imams That would have been very interesting. I wonder if they used the same deflection tactics as we see here? Quote: The report claims that the 24-man board ignored or did not directly answer many of the questions. Quote: When cases came to court they were often dropped after family and community elders pressured women to withdraw charges. No surprises there. Islam seems to inevitably create a culture that places women second. Abu et al claim that this would somehow change under a caliphate, but I don't see how it would. It would just become more ingrained. Women cannot be protected by laws alone. It requires a culture that supports their independence.
Extremism Exposed - Complaints Gaybriel wrote on Yesterday at 11:44am: Lestat wrote on Yesterday at 11:35am: Gabriel, Do these comments not constitute personal abuse? "This sort of argument makes you bad in eyes of Allah and the looser of discussion." yep- modded Quote: "Does Allah will you to tell lies or are you servant of Shaitan?" the latter half of this has been modded Quote: "Your twisting the Truth and continuous personal attacks makes Islam to look bad and according to Koran you will burn in hell for that. " this is merely poor understanding of Islam How on earth do these remarks constitute a personal attack? If I were to say that my interlocutor has a poor argument and is condemned by his own principles, and ask him whether he is in the service of dark powers - how is that a personal attack? If I were to tell him that the paucity of his argument will always condemn him to losing every argument - how is that a personal attack? But to say that he will burn in hell is merely a theological misunderstanding. Gaybriel, please indicate, if you can, the line between robust disagreement, calling a spade a a spade and acceptable degrees of theological interpretation on the one hand and personal attack on the other.
Extremism Exposed - Israeli treatment of Palestinians Gaybriel wrote on Yesterday at 5:08pm: Quote: The motivation of Muslims - and not just palestinian Arabs - is motivated by religion. The palestinian refugees are kept in squalor by their muslim brethren in order to maintain the hostility towards israel. Why? this is very untrue- where do you get this from? Dec. 2, 2006 Gaza women warned of immodesty A....group calling itself the Just Swords of Islam issued a warning to Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip over the weekend that they must wear the hijab or face being targeted by the group's members. .....The group said its followers last week threw acid at the face of a young woman who was dressed "immodestly" in the center of Gaza City. .....the group also claimed responsibility for attacks on 12 Internet cafes over the past few days. ....."We will have no mercy on any woman who violates the traditions of Islam and who also hang out in Internet cafes." ACCORDING TO THE GROUP, ITS MEMBERS USED ROCKET-PROPELLED GRENADES to attack 12 Internet cafes and a number of music shops in different parts of the Gaza Strip. It said the places were targeted because they were "distracting an entire generation of Palestinians from their duty to worship [Allah] and jihad.... http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881802888&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter Gaybriel, When the Israelis seek to defend themselves from relentless terrorist attacks [by ISLAMISTS], they are child killers [when potential co-combatants are killed, sometimes even mistakenly]. But when ISLAMISTS target and murder fellow muslims [those who do not 'submit', or do not fully embrace the 'Cause of Allah'], they, are freedom fighters ???
Transport - Piracy It seems to be profitable business despite global financial crisis. $25 million for just 16 minutes of work. Would you invest if Somali pirates float their shares on a market? Pirates took just 16 minutes from boarding to seizing control of a 100-million-dollar-laden Saudi oil super-tanker......A 25-million-dollar ransom was demanded Thursday -- with a 10-day deadline...

Your say

Environment - Not "climate change"
Emissions not making rivers run dry
Stewart Franks | September 12, 2008
Article from: The Australian

IS the ongoing drought in the Murray-Darling Basin affected by climate change? The simple answer is that there is no evidence that CO2 has had any significant role. Like it or not, that is the science.

In fact, the drought was caused by an entirely natural phenomenon: the 2002 El Nino event. This led to particularly low rainfalls across eastern Australia. The subsequent years were either neutral or weak El Nino conditions. Significantly, neutral conditions are not sufficient to break a drought. In 2006, we had a return to El Nino conditions which further exacerbated the drought. What we didn't have was a strong La Nina.

Last year finally brought a La Nina event but it was relatively weak. It produced a number of major storm events in coastal areas and some useful rainfall in the Murray-Darling basin and elsewhere. Approximately half of NSW drought-declared areas were lifted out of drought (albeit into "marginal" status) and Sydney's water supply doubled in the space of a few months.

This was the first rain-bearing La Nina since 1999 but proved insufficient to break the drought. In short, the drought was initiated by El Nino, protracted by further El Nino events and perhaps more importantly, the absence of substantial La Nina events.

Despite the known causes of the drought, many have claimed that CO2 emissions are to blame. There have been arguments put forward to justify this claim, all eagerly adopted by various groups, but none of which have serious merit.

A key claim is that the multiple occurrence of El Nino is a sign of climate change. This is speculative at best. Recent analysis showed the nine-year absence of La Nina was not unusual. In fact long-term records demonstrate alternating periods of 20-40 years where El Nino is dominant, followed by similarly extended periods where La Nina dominates. Ominously, the data demonstrates that it is possible to go 14-15 years without any La Nina events. The consequent drought would be devastating but entirely natural.

The observation that El Nino and La Nina events cluster on 20-40 year, multi-decadal timescales is an important one. It demonstrates that Australia should always expect major changes in climate as a function of natural variability. When viewed in this light, the drought is most likely a recurring feature of the Australian climate.

A more recent claim is that higher temperatures are leading to increased evaporation of moisture. The weather bureau acknowledges that rainfall from September 2001 until now has not been the lowest recorded, however much has been made of the fact that consequent inflows have been the lowest. It has been claimed increased evaporation, driven by climate change, can make up this discrepancy. Indeed, Wendy Craik, the chief executive of the Murray Darling Basin Commission has stated that temperatures were warmer, leading to more evaporation and drier catchments.

This is disturbing to hear from the head of the MDBC, as it is completely at odds with the known physics of evaporation. While it sounds intuitively correct, it is wrong.

When soil contains high moisture content, much of the sun's energy is used in evaporation. Consequently, there is limited heating of the surface. When soil moisture content is low (as occurs during drought) nearly all of that energy is converted into heating the surface, and air temperatures rise significantly. Consequently, higher temperatures are due to the lack of evaporation, not a cause of significantly higher evaporation.

Cloud cover also provides a major control on air temperatures. El Nino delivers less rainfall but also less cloud cover. This has a major impact on the amount of the sun's energy reaching land; far greater than the trivial increase in radiant energy caused by increased CO2. Again, in the absence of soil moisture, air temperatures increase.

These are known and accepted processes of environmental physics and are not contentious. They are ignored because they detract from the simple message that we should sign up to the concept of "dangerous climate change" and an emissions trading scheme. After all, who would pay for carbon emissions if they were not proven to be detrimental? Who would provide extra funds for climate change science if it wasn't a proven significant factor compared to natural climatic variability?

None of the above is to say that CO2 is not having some effect; the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen and this is largely attributable to anthropogenic emissions. CO2 is a radiatively-active gas and leads to a minor increase in downward radiation. However, there is no evidence that this is in any way significant, especially when compared to the naturally varying processes that dominate rainfall variability and evaporation.

We do know why inflows are so low and why various ecosystems of the Murray-Darling are in crisis: the system is over-allocated and has experienced a growth in groundwater extraction and in the number of farm dams preventing rainfall from becoming run-off. This is due to a failure of planning, management and leadership from the relevant authorities. Under these conditions, when a prolonged drought strikes, the system collapses.

This is a man-made problem but not one that is attributable to CO2.

pt1

Islam - Clerics condone....
Quote:

and meetings with and questions to the Victorian Board of Imams

That would have been very interesting. I wonder if they used the same deflection tactics as we see here?

Quote:

The report claims that the 24-man board ignored or did not directly answer many of the questions.

Quote:

When cases came to court they were often dropped after family and community elders pressured women to withdraw charges.

No surprises there. Islam seems to inevitably create a culture that places women second. Abu et al claim that this would somehow change under a caliphate, but I don't see how it would. It would just become more ingrained. Women cannot be protected by laws alone. It requires a culture that supports their independence.

Extremism Exposed - Complaints
Gaybriel wrote on Yesterday at 11:44am:

Lestat wrote on Yesterday at 11:35am:

Gabriel,

Do these comments not constitute personal abuse?

"This sort of argument makes you bad in eyes of Allah and the looser of discussion."

yep- modded

Quote:

"Does Allah will you to tell lies or are you servant of Shaitan?"

the latter half of this has been modded

Quote:

"Your twisting the Truth and continuous personal attacks makes Islam to look bad and according to Koran you will burn in hell for that. "

this is merely poor understanding of Islam

How on earth do these remarks constitute a personal attack?

If I were to say that my interlocutor has a poor argument and is condemned by his own principles, and ask him whether he is in the service of dark powers - how is that a personal attack? If I were to tell him that the paucity of his argument will always condemn him to losing every argument - how is that a personal attack? But to say that he will burn in hell is merely a theological misunderstanding.

Gaybriel, please indicate, if you can, the line between robust disagreement, calling a spade a a spade and acceptable degrees of theological interpretation on the one hand and personal attack on the other.

Extremism Exposed - Israeli treatment of Palestinians
Gaybriel wrote on Yesterday at 5:08pm:

Quote:

The motivation of Muslims - and not just palestinian Arabs - is motivated by religion. The palestinian refugees are kept in squalor by their muslim brethren in order to maintain the hostility towards israel. Why?

this is very untrue- where do you get this from?

Dec. 2, 2006
Gaza women warned of immodesty
A....group calling itself the Just Swords of Islam issued a warning to Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip over the weekend that they must wear the hijab or face being targeted by the group's members.
.....The group said its followers last week threw acid at the face of a young woman who was dressed "immodestly" in the center of Gaza City.
.....the group also claimed responsibility for attacks on 12 Internet cafes over the past few days.
....."We will have no mercy on any woman who violates the traditions of Islam and who also hang out in Internet cafes."
ACCORDING TO THE GROUP, ITS MEMBERS USED ROCKET-PROPELLED GRENADES to attack 12 Internet cafes and a number of music shops in different parts of the Gaza Strip.
It said the places were targeted because they were "distracting an entire generation of Palestinians from their duty to worship [Allah] and jihad....
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881802888&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Gaybriel,

When the Israelis seek to defend themselves from relentless terrorist attacks [by ISLAMISTS], they are child killers [when potential co-combatants are killed, sometimes even mistakenly].

But when ISLAMISTS target and murder fellow muslims [those who do not 'submit', or do not fully embrace the 'Cause of Allah'], they, are freedom fighters ???

Transport - Piracy
It seems to be profitable business despite global financial crisis.

$25 million for just 16 minutes of work.

Would you invest if Somali pirates float their shares on a market?

Pirates took just 16 minutes from boarding to seizing control of a 100-million-dollar-laden Saudi oil super-tanker......A 25-million-dollar ransom was demanded Thursday -- with a 10-day deadline...